High Court Madras High Court

Santhi Alias Saraswathi vs The State on 1 August, 2006

Madras High Court
Santhi Alias Saraswathi vs The State on 1 August, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

Dated: 01/08/2006 

Coram 

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM   
and 
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMAR    

Habeas Corpus Petition No.496 of 2006 


Santhi alias Saraswathi                ... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The State
   of Tamilnadu
   Rep. by its Secretary to Government
   Prohibition and Excise Department
   Fort St.George
   Chennai 9.

2. The District Magistrate
   and District Collector
   Namakkal District,
   Namakkal.                            ... Respondents

        Petition under Article 226  of  the  Constitution  of  India  for  the
issuance  of  a  writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the
order of detention dated 17.04.2006 made in C.M.P.  No.8/BL/2006(M1) passed by 
the 2nd respondent herein, quash the same by producing the body of the  detenu
who is the petitioner's husband by name Kathirvel, before Court and set him at
liberty forthwith.

!For Petitioner  :  Mr.N.Manokaran

^For Respondents :  Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran   
                    Addl.  Public Prosecutor.

:ORDER  

(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Kathirvel. She
challenges the impugned order of detention dated 17.04.2006, detaining her
husband as “Bootlegger” as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. At the fore most, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which
ultimately vitiates the impugned order of detention.

4. With reference to the said contention, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has placed the details, which show that the representation, dated
24.04.2006, of the detenu was received by the Government on 2 7.04.2006;
Remarks were called for on 28.04.2006 and received on 05.0 5.2006.
Thereafter, File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on
10.05.2006. However, the Minster for Prohibition and Excise passed orders
only on 23.05.2006. Rejection Letter was prepared on the same day, sent to
the detenu on 24.05.2006 and served to him on 26.05.2006. As rightly pointed
out, though the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with the File
even on 10.05.2006, the same was disposed of by the Minister concerned only on
23.05.2006. We are of the view that the the delay occurred due to the
placidity between 10.05.2006 and 23.05.2006 is on the higher side, which
vitiates the ultimate detention order.

5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with
any other case.

JI.

To

1. The Secretary to Govt.,
Prohibition & Excise Dept.,
Chennai 9.

2. The Dt. Magistrate and Dt. Collector,
Namakkal.

3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Salem
(In duplicate for communication to the detenu).

4. The Secretary,
Public (Law & Order) Dept.,
Chennai 9.

5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.